' This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., for the quashment of a case under section 10/16 of the Offence of Zina enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, 1979, registered against the petitioner and others.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that a case under the offence of Zina Ordinance, 1979 has been registered against the petitioner and others at the instance of one Dost Muhammad on 3-11-1982 at P.S. Bhalwal, District Sargodha. The police found the petitioner and two others guilty and submitted the challan against them. However, some of the accused were found innocent. Dost Muhammad complainant filed a private complaint against the accused not challaned by the police. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha forwarded the private complaint to the Ilaqe Magistrate for enquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. The Ilaqa Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner and two others were guilty while the others were innocent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, did not agree with the learned Magistrate and issued warrant of arrest against all the accused persons.
' The petitioner prays for the quashment of challan case and private complaint case on the grounds that they are based on false allegations and that Mst. Bakhan the alleged abductee had voluntarily solemnized marriage with the 'petitioner and that from the material collected against the petitioner and others no case was made out against them and there were absolutely no chances of their conviction.
4. It is a settled proposition of law that inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is not an alternate jurisdiction or additional jurisdiction and cannot be invoked when an alternate remedy is available. No adjudication is possible except through trial. The trial Court is empowered to acquit the accused at any stage of the case if it considers the challan to be groundless or finds that there is no' probability of the accused being convicted of any offence. The petitioner has come to this Court directly, without invoking the jurisdiction of the trial Court under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. He should move the trial Court in the first instance, if so desired by him.
' The petition is, therefore, dismissed being premature.